Saturday, December 15, 2007

On Federalist No. 46, and the New Boston Tea Party.



Ladies, Gentlemen, MRAs, Truthseekers, and yes, Feminist Lurkers:

Welcome.

On Sunday, December the Sixteenth, history will be re-enacted as ordinary Americans from all over the country pass judgment upon the Intolerable Acts [1][2] that government, State and Federal, has perpetrated upon the people.

Before going forward, a brief aside:

Some claim that Freemasons organized and carried out the original Boston Tea Party. This would make sense as many of the leading figures of the day were either Freemasons or associated with them [a]. Interestingly enough, the Insightful site Henry Makow.com has several articles suggesting that Ron Paul himself might be "in the know."

Click here to see the evidence for yourself.

I personally don't believe that Mr. Paul is in league with occult powers due to the fact that his record is utterly consistent, and because actions speak much louder than questionable hand signals.

With that said, I feel that it is my duty to bring up anything of interest to my readership, and to remind everyone that we are NOT supposed to be supporting any one figure. We should be supporting the MESSAGE of freedom and liberty. Anyone who doesn't cut the Constitutional mustard is automatically suspect, and must be opposed, for reasons I make apparent in this post, and by extension, the totality of this blog.

But, I digress.



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(A historical representation of England violating the American colonies: certainly an intolerable act!)

Among the abuses that government hath wrought, issues of particular interest to my readers include the fact that our government has stripped us of our Natural Right to be fathers to our children, and to be secure in our marriages and our homes [3][4].

Our Due Process and Equal Protection rights have been utterly trampled upon by feminist tyranny, a weak handmaid in the service to a much more ancient evil.

Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr., speaking about feminist jurisprudence, notes in his Impressive Tyranny of Tolerance:




Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(Catherine Mackinnon)


"At its core, the femifascist agenda is based on hatred for men. Hatred is not too strong a word to apply to the most radical feminism. For example, Catherine Mackinnon [5][6], one of the foremost exponents of radical feminist legal doctrine, attacks the basic premise of the equal protection clause, comparing it to Nazi legal doctrine. She also believes that white men are the root of all evil and injustice in America, and that the law must strip power from them to compensate women for their past oppression (Dierker, Tyranny of Tolerance, p. 19)."


It should also be noted that feminism has been quite unkind to black men, and that a significant contributor to modern day feminist philosophy can be traced back directly to the Women's Ku Klux Klan [b][c].

What the good Judge speaks of, the utter contempt that the overwhelming bulk of feminist theory truly has for the classical liberalism that this country was founded upon, has already been discussed here previously [7][8].

The Supreme Court and the Congress of the United States have both declared that Men are natural born abusers [9][10], and have no family rights that are to be respected. And the cruel irony is that, not only are such allegations completely false, but these blanket assertions mortally weaken the rights of women to their own offspring.

However, for the time being, only women have rights to their children; whereas men are completely overruled except in the rarest of circumstances, presuming of course, that the mother of the child has unilaterally decided to allow it to be born.

Indeed, there are many more abuses that I could speak of, and most of the Constitutional violations that are the result of a government run amok are summarized very eloquently in the Masterwork Taken into Custody, by the Unflappable Baskerville.


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(James Madison)


The purpose of today's post, however, is to introduce (or reacquaint) you to the words of the Founders that are extremely relevant to our current situation, and we shall look to what Madison has to say in The Federalist Papers No. 46.

As you will soon see, the worst fears concerning the abuse of federal power have been realized in our very day. I hope and pray that reading this will embolden you, Dear Reader, to DO YOUR DUTY and take action to seal away the savage beast of government back into its Constitutional abyss, where it belongs.

Madison writes:

The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared

From the New York Packet.

Tuesday, January 29, 1788.

MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

.. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes...

... the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.


Madison and other Founders make it clear that government is our servant, not our master. All power belongs to the people. And furthermore, the only protection from government tyranny is the active participation of an informed and vigilant populace, namely you and me.

It's not up to the politicians in Washington to protect our rights. It is not the responsibility of the state governments to restrain themselves from doing things that the constitution DOES NOT GIVE them authority to do. It is up to us, period point blank, and We the People have failed to reign in these abuses, thanks to our ignorance, and our complacency, our greed and our apathy.

Madison continues:

... Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States...


Is that so?

Then why does the Military Flag of the United States fly everywhere, and the various state flags fly in meek submission?

Why do people today look first to the Federal government to take care of everything, instead of looking to their states?

The reasons for this change of perspective are many, but the fact remains that many people (myself included) are grossly ignorant as to how our Republic is actually supposed to function.

The author goes on to say:

... It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage...

... Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments.

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot
and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty...


I ask you again, dear reader:

Does it seem that the States are sovereign in their respective powers, or do we suffer from an overbearing national government?

As an example of the federal/state collusion that should not be taking place in our Republic, consider the symbiotic relationship that state and federal child support agencies have with one another.

Is this a shining example of state governments protecting the natural rights of its male citizens?

Is this a sterling example of the federal government leaving the states to exercise power in its sphere of influence?

I think not, and these types of collusions, among others, greatly weaken the federalist structure, which was designed to prevent the federal or the state governments from violating the rights of the people.

Another brief aside:

I believe that there are times when the federal power should step in when a state is failing to live up to its legal and moral mandate (see Federalist No. 45, 27 and 54, Unconstitutionality of Slavery), which is the protection of the rights and liberties of ALL of its citizens and future citizens, regardless of race and/or sex.

For example, the overt wording of the Fourteenth Amendment, while very much flawed for reasons explored previously, [11][12] was to protect the rights of ex-slaves from immoral and illegal repression and violence by certain politicians in the former Confederate States.

Another well-known federal intervention into state affairs occured during the late fifties and early sixties with forced integration in several Southern states. As a black man, its ironic to me that slavery and issues of race may have led to the downfall of the states as robust, sovereign entities. However, it is my view that these turbulent interventions are exactly what our system of government is supposed to do: the unit of government that offends and oppresses the rights of the people is ultimately punished for its wrongdoing.

However, federal interventions into state affairs should be lawful, in good faith, reasonable, limited in time period, and ended as soon as humanly possible, once the violations of personal liberty are finally resolved.

In our day, it is becoming increasingly clear to all that the federal government is the unit behaving badly. And, at long last, both the people and the states seem to be ready to place Uncle Sam over their knee and give it the good spanking it so rightfully deserves!

But, I digress again. Forgive me.


Getting back to Madison, he argues:

... The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition.

The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger.

That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism...



These are probably the most important, and prophetic words for our times.

Are we Patriots when we marry and supply ammunition for wicked governments, federal and state, to destroy us?

If we were hellbent on opposing tyranny, would it not be better for men NOT to to marry and have children until these unjust laws are repealed? Should we not utterly reject feminist theology? Should we not warn and educate our fellow man to the best of our ability?

DO real Patriots go with the flow and accept the creation of Superstates such as the North American Union without a word of protest?

Or would it be better to scream, holler and shout until every American who loves his country is aware of the threat and ready to resist it?

Would true Patriots continue to vote for traitors and conspirators? Men who care nothing about our constitution, our natural rights as children of God, or the well being of our country? Who conspire to enslave us and bankrupt us?

Or... would they support a man who, for decades, has supported our constitution, our freedoms, and is NOT a member of this elite cabal that seeks to reduce us to sheep? Who is well respected by academics, politicians and pundits, finance professionals, and average joes like me?

Only you can answer that my friend.

If you should be interested in making a small step towards regaining what has been lost, please watch this video, and take action as appropriate. We the Ron Paul faithful would be ever so appreciative, and I believe that Madison and the other Fathers would be pleased as well:





At the end of the day, regardless of what anyone else does, there is only one thing left for me to say...

GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!!


Kumo tha Buffalo Soldier.

3 comments:

YY said...

GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!!

Amen!

xy said...

"Are we Patriots when we marry and supply ammunition for wicked governments, federal and state, to destroy us?"

Signing a marriage contract with the government only feeds a system that is out to destroy men by financialy harvesting them later in the family court system. Maybe someday the laws will change but until then I think I will pass on participating in my own destruction by signing one of those contracts.

Kumogakure said...

YY and XY,

Right on point.

State marriage is really an unnecessary thing, and not buying into the system will surely hasten its destruction.

Can't wait!